Facing the New Fascism

The premise of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism is that the socialist or liberal left frequently uses the tactics of the fascist right. Some liberals are so convinced of the correctness of their cause that they think themselves entitled to the use of any methods, no matter how illiberal, to advance that cause. In the aftermath of the California voters’ passage of Proposition 8, the new fascist mindset is on display in living Technicolor, or maybe I should say in rainbow color.

California voters rejected the darling social cause of the fashionable elites: same-sex “marriage.” The election procedures were undeniably fair: After all, this is the electorate that voted for Obama by landslide margins. Did I say that? Obama won by 52% of the popular vote nationwide: the exact same percentage that voted for Proposition 8. So the homosexual lobby must find some other pretext for undoing the outcome of a fair election. Please observe the tactics:

1. Get the judiciary to overturn the election on a technicality. Proposition 8 was not an amendment at all, but a “revision” to the California Constitution.

If they really believe this argument, they should have asked to throw it out before it ever got on the ballot. Both sides were in court, back in July, when Jerry Brown was rewriting the title of the initiative in order to sink its chances of passing. That would have been a good time to bring up the subject of “revision vs. amendment” — before the two sides spent more than $70 million on an election.

2. Delegitimize the vote itself. Keep repeating the lie that all the pro-Prop. 8 arguments were lies. Make people ashamed of having voted for Prop. 8. Keep fighting the same election over and over until people give up and let you win out of sheer exhaustion.

The “No” team had an entire election cycle, with lots of money, to try to convince people to reject our arguments. They don’t seem to accept the fact that they don’t get forever to try to make their case.

3. Intimidate people.If all else fails, scare people. March in the streets in large numbers. Pick out defenseless targets. Don’t protest in working-class neighborhoods, even though working-class people voted strongly for Prop. 8. Demonstrate against Mormons instead. Target Prop. 8 donors, even people who gave as little as $100. Hound them out of their jobs. And while you’re at it, attack some little old ladies carrying crosses. Grab their crosses and throw them on the ground and stomp on them.

These are not liberal tactics. These are strong-armed, bullying tactics, better suited to certain European countries in the 1930s and ’40s than to America in the 21st century.

4. Demonize your opponents.Blame all your troubles on an unpopular or mysterious religious minority. If only the Mormons hadn’t spent so much time and money for Prop. 8, it would not have passed. Therefore, the whole election is suspect.

And while you’re in the scapegoating business, go ahead and blame the racial minorities who voted for Prop. 8 in overwhelming numbers. Homosexual bloggers have reported the “liberal” use of the “n word” at some of the protests: white homosexuals blaming black homosexuals because “their community” voted against them.

The homosexual activist lobby doesn’t understand that the rest of the world does not view same-sex “marriage” as the ultimate civil rights issue. Members of the liberal black community are trying to explain this to the homosexual lobby, but I doubt they will get it. They seem to be committed to the time-honored strategy of political radicals everywhere: assume the conclusion. Repeat it loud enough and often enough and you may not ever have to make an actual argument for it.

Now, I am certainly aware that not all homosexuals and lesbians agree with all the tactics adopted by activist leaders who claim to represent them. Some homosexuals and lesbians even voted Yes on Prop. 8. I know these “gay dissenters” exist, because they send me e-mails.

And I feel sure that most of the people who voted No on Prop. 8 are not radicals of any kind, certainly not liberal fascists. Most probably cast their vote for fairness, tolerance and treating others nicely.

But the homosexual lobby is now being grossly unfair to the voters of California by trying to replace the results of a fair election with a combination of mob tactics and raw judicial power. The homosexual activist lobby is being intolerant of people who disagree with them, by deliberately inciting hatred against a religious minority. And as for treating others nicely, well, where I come from, assaulting little old ladies and hounding people out of their jobs does not count as being nice.

So I ask the more than 6 million Californians who voted No on Prop. 8: Is this really what you meant to vote for? And I ask everyone watching the behavior of the California homosexual activists: Is this a group of people that needs more power?

American voters have consistently supported marriage between a man and a woman. Voters will not forget the homosexual lobby’s strong-arm tactics in California. In the next round of deliberations over same-sex “marriage,” voters will reject these tactics every bit as much as same-sex “marriage” itself.

Subscribe to CE(It's free)

More on Catholic Exchange

The problem of the same-sex marriage debate will not go away until people live out marriage as what it truly is, especially the being open to life part. To put it very simply, marriage is about more than people just liking each other and hooking up for a set period of time. A contract is something that can be terminated with various exit penalties. A covenant is something that can never be broken. To put it another way, prostitution (legal here in the Australian State of New South Wales) is a contract: Marriage is a covenant.

But the open-ness to life bit is vital. If it is not necessary to be open to life, then whether or not children are conceived in the one-flesh union is a side-show. If that is the case, then there is no good reason to forbid “same-sex marriage”. But we need to take things to logical conclusions. Why stop at same sex marriage? Why not allow incestuous marriage? For that matter, why not allow one to marry a member of another species?

The whole matter comes down to fidelity to what marriage truly is. If people were committed to life long marriage, then the same-sex marriage fight would be largely over. But because people make marriage into a sham by pre-nuptial agreements, easy divorce, intentional sterility, and cheating on their spouse, it becomes difficult to fight others who want to make marriage into a greater sham.

By the way, just so no one mis-interprets what I wrote, I wholeheartedly support the intentions of proposition 8, and want to defend True Marriage by the way I live. Our Lady Help of Christians, Patronness of my marriage and Australia, pray for us.

One of the great lies of our time is that fascism is a right-wing ideology. Fascism is the idea that the State should be all-encompassing; that no social structure, business, or organization should exist outside of the State. Government oversight of business and religion is NOT a right-wing idea.

Arkanabar: Yes, when I first saw the “fascist right”, I thought, but fascism is really part of the left. The only reason people think it is “right” is because is is more to the right than, say, communism, but simply being to the right of communism, doesn’t make fascism part of the right wing. Dr. Morris is an economist, so I am surprised she put it that way. Of course, one could say that “liberal” comes from the Latin word for “freedom” so a “liberal government” should offer us a very free market, right? ‘fraid not in this country.

As to marriage: I know three church going (but not Catholic) families on our street and one supposedly Lutheran-but-we-don’t-go-to-church family. The three church going families are all “divorce re-marriage”. The non-church going family is still intact. (And of course, there is no open to life part, as Sean said above.) We Christians got ourselves into this. It isn’t just the homosexuals. The rot has come from within and is destroying us.

One thing I do not entirely agree with however is that I think there is a place for pre-nuputual agreements, but among the elderly who are entering into a second marriage (after death of previous spouses). I think that could be a legitimate reason. But with younger people I would think pre-nups are simply an admission that the couple involved aren’t really sure about the strength of the marriage or their commitment.

The Priest should have informed you that a pre-nuputual agreement makes a marriage nullable, but maybe in this day and age, men should require the woman to sign a statement that they would never abort their children.

goral

We have lost this battle and the other side knows it. The laws now need to be adjusted to reflect the thinking of the citizens. Whatever we may think privately, we will not admit publicly that homosexuality is a perversion, a disorder, a deviancy no different than pedophilia.
Since we refuse to say that in the public sphere, actually quite the opposite, we acceptingly grin and smile and politely excuse that which we equate with a dirty joke.
The abnormal side has a more normal thinking pattern on this same sex subject.

If you upstanding citizens accept this “gayety” and with us call it as such-
If we can hold all sorts of positions that allow us easy access to practice our aberrant behavior-
If we can march in the streets of your clean neighborhoods and titillate your voyeurism-
If we can walk the beach holding hands and kissing in front of the sandcastles that your kids are making-
If you already accept legal unions and other legal arrangements to assist our back to front lifestyle-
If you are so sensitive and polite and christianly loving then how can you?
NO! how dare you deny us of the next very logical step?
Surely you don’t hold marriage to be that holy as you demonstrate in practice?!

So the problem Dr. Morse is not in their thinking, it’s in ours as a society.
To correct it all we need to do is take dog training classes. We would learn logical reasoning and consistency. The convoluted thinking is ours.
We are the rationalizing switch hitters who continue to twist and bend decency.
It is we, the timid who are all over the field in our opinion of this perversion.

The sodomites are rationally consistent in what they believe and they have the courage to pursue it.

Kathryn

Don:

I am not sure why the priest should have informed me that a pre-nup makes a marriage nullible, as when my husband and I were going through marriage prep, we never discussed that kind of thing. As I said, pre-nups for younger people don’t seem right.

In the case I was thinking of, an elderly gentleman who’s wife had died, who had kids, and grandkids, and great-grand kids wished to marry an elderly lady who’s husband (both actually, she she was married/widowed twice) had died, who had kids and grand kids and great grandkids. Neither of them were Bill Gates, but they had a nice chunk of change and a few other assets. The pre-nup was drawn up assuming that one of the two (but probably the man) would pre-decease, and assets from the deceased spouse would transfer to the “proper” side of the family. Also, if the man did die before the wife, then some of his assets would transfer down, but other assets would be used for the wife’s upkeep. Upon her death, remaining assets pass to his family, and her assets would eventually pass to her family. This seems reasonable to me, especially considering that many people behave very badly when their parents die and start fighting over who gets what.

Now I suppose one could say that they weren’t really married, even though they were married by a Catholic priest (one of them was Catholic, the other was not). On the other hand, they had a much better marriage than some of the ones I have seen, and much longer lasting as well (they beat the “7 year inch” by several years, and the marriage did in fact end only because of the death of one of the spouses.)

We seems to perfer fallen marriages, I do know why, it seems to me, we should perfer an Incarnate marriage instead, but we do not.

Why we like Adam and Eve’s choice over Joseph and Mary’s is beyond my comprehesion.

plowshare

Civil marriage is not a right, much less a fundamental right. It is not even mentioned in the US Constitution, and can be abolished by the state if enough people want it abolished. There are signs that this is the ultimate goal of the Gay Power movement anyway.

Yes, I say Gay Power, not Gay Rights, not even Gay Privileges, although that accurate since civil marriage is a privilege. “Gay Rights” evokes memories of Martin Luther King, Jr., while Gay Power evokes the far more appropriate memories of Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, and the Black Panthers.

Connect

CE Shop

This page is having a slideshow that uses Javascript. Your browser either doesn't support Javascript or you have it turned off. To see this page as it is meant to appear please use a Javascript enabled browser.